Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Google Halts Scanning of Copyrighted Books [news.yahoo.com]
Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry to opt out of the program instead of opting in.
Gee... those poor publishers must feel like webmasters. Errr... web publishers.
The attacks on Google's handling of copyrighted material extend beyond books.
They mentioned one thing, but didn't mention several others.
"Google's procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear."
Where have I heard THAT before? Sounds like webmasters are getting an unexpected assist...
Which is of course why most publishers give away books.
Which is of course why most publishers give away books.
"When someone enters search terms that are relevant to the words and phrases in your book, the book appears highlighted on the search results. Clicking on one of your titles in the Google search results will lead users to the page from the book on which the search terms appear. For an example, see our screenshots."
I think we now know why they pushed autolink through such obvious opposition.
The company also is scanning books stored at the New York Public Library and Oxford University, but those two libraries so far are providing Google only with "public domain" works — material no longer protected by copyrights.
That would be one thing. Scanning copyrighted material is quite another.
Google executives have positioned the scanning project as a largely altruistic endeavor that will make it easier for people around the world to read the valuable — and often rare — material stockpiled in libraries.
This is a lame explanation. If it's rare, then 99% of the time it's in the public domain and copyright doesn't apply. If it's not rare (e.g., probably still copyrighted), why bother?
As far as I am concerned, with the implementation of the autolink feature, Google has already reached the turning point from being a benign organizer of information and is wandering down the path of bullies who push to get their way, reagardless of how others feel about it.
Google's pursuit of their own interests over the objections of those with copyrights over their books and websites is disturbing. The way Google unilaterally pushes to manipulate the works of others, with complete disregard of opposition, reminds me- and I hate to say it - of the arrogance Microsoft has been accused of showing.
If Google wants to take this into the courts it will only help solidify the growing perception that Google is not so benign. I'm only saying this as constructive criticism. Google is singlehandedly pulling down the good image they've worked to create, from Schmidt's hissy fit with CNET to this. The image Google is projecting is growing consistently negative.
NOT a Google fan here; don't trust them.
This opt-out crumb that Google is offering is laughable, and no one will fall for it. Google's position is very weak. Information does not want to be free. Never has, and never will.
The image Google is projecting is growing consistently negative.
And in my opinion its only gonna get worse.
G's position is that of a spoiled brat who doesn't wants to play by the rules.
One cannot go against publishers, web masters, journalists, news agencies all at once. Let alone HR discrimination accusations.
<added>G now needs the world's best PR specialists, not the world's best engineers.
Google executives have positioned the scanning project as a largely altruistic endeavor
So why are comerical advertisments (AKA: Sponsored Links) showing up next to the results for relevant searches? If it is truley altruistic endeavor, let me search them without the advertisments.
I am awe struck at the arrogance of Google at this point in the game. At least Microsoft was well diversified before they tried to take over the world.
I'm glad this came up because it sheds tons of light on the AutoLink bullspit.
I can see why they aren't doing much about scrapers...AutoLink could soon be the worlds largest scraper. Way to sport the black hat G - good to know that moral and ethic values are meaningless to you.
If I were G, I would be walking lightly right now - there are lots of BIG players coming into the Advertising game. If this garbage persists Google, people will jump ship, and G will just be another search engine that WAS on top at one time.
sidenote / G-Toolbar uninstalled, feedback sent
Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry to opt out of the program instead of opting in.
Heck, I still haven't got over that you have to setup robots.txt with disallow statements not to crawled instead of allow statements to get crawled.
I would agree with your sentiment, but amend the statement to read:
Google cannot retain the hearts and minds of webmasters with this kind of attitude.
The public (as in users) wants features like this. They are the audience that Google caters to- for good reason.
When I'm wearing my "internet user" hat, I cheer features like this. When I'm wearing my webmaster hat-I sharpen my pitchfork.
Sure they do. Just as they want free music, films & software from file sharing networks.
Isn't something like this that creates all the email spam? Thousands of spam we get daily asking us to opt out instaed of opting in. Who can spend hours daily opting out form each and every one of the avalanche of spam messages?
Stop to think if this copyright rule doesn't comes out ultimately in Google's favor. You have to opt in. Whenever you have to opt in with a major search engine, you are going to PAY for it. That is fact.
How many little dogs in this forum will be crushed when Google starts to charge for inclusion, because of the overhead involved with processing opt-ins?
Multiply that out people, because what is good for Google, will be good for ALL engines. Do you really want to wake up one day to a notice that says all search engines have to have an opt-in, and find out every engine has a hefty annual fee? This is where this is headed if it continues. Count on it. The cost of business will skyrocket, and while the big boys can dole it out, the little dogs will to curl up in a corner and lick their wounds, before dishing out several thousand dollars a year, to be listed in every search engine.
And, the only thing keeping prices relatively low on paid submisssion now, like the $299 Yahoo directory, is the fact that the BIG DOG is still free. When the Big Dog begins to charge a fee, watch prices sky rocket.
And... forget the 'allow' statement in your code. Copyright will require hand submission, and agreement to TOS in order to be legal. They need documentation on their server, otherwise, what is to keep you from pulling the code, claim that you never gave them permission and they experienced a 'glitch' that robbed you of your rights, and then sue them?
HTML language on a page won't cut it. You want protection? Dear heaven, you might just get a truckload of legal mubble jumble to protect your copyright, and pay through the nose for it. Is that really what you want? No, of course not. What you want is your cake and eat it too. Give me what I want, when I want, and I don't want to pay a thin dime for it. Watch the threads fill-up with squeelers when they have to pay for ALL their traffic.
It could be the end to the free traffic so many in this forum are so very proud of. You want to think about who you are cheering for in this fight. You might be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
After all... it was FREE search traffic that made each and everyone of you what you are today. Nobody came to the web with all their traffic in hat. Everyone of you relied, initially, on some amout of free traffic, to let people know where you were. While you may not need much of it now, you sure loved it when you were at square one. Now, you want to bite the hands that fed you?
Give me a break.
Google just needs to stop listening to their phd collection all the time, and listen to people with common sense when it comes to these types of questions. This reaction was totally predictable. Google's attitude towards copyrighted works has little if anything to do with the actual reality of copyright law. The publishers know this, their legal teams who sent google the first unhappy communications about this plan know this, only google seems left blissfully unaware of the the facts. But they are primarily programmers after all, so no surprise there.
I agree with martinibuster 100% on this matter. Of course it's no accident that Google has been hiring away key MS employees either, might as well, if you want to play that game, might as well grab some of the other teams best players. But then you're playing that game, gets harder to keep up those cute little company slogans any longer.
I don't think that SE's will EVER be opt in...and if they were - putting an outrageous fee on "getting listed" would be suicide.
Why?
Because another SE would start doing it for free, and DOMINATE.
I’m willing to bet if they placed some of those Google employees in front of a Grand Jury they’d admit they knew Adsense was going to become a vehicle for copyright infringement. People are beginning to get wise about Google and are protecting their turf. Google feels they’ve got the money reserves to lawyer up against anybody so I believe they’ll keep testing the limits.
WBF
what does a Grand Jury have to do with anything?
Plus, how it's Google's fault that people scrap or use content from other sites?
Let's not confuse issues.
Unfortunately since Bourbon Google have penalised my site (although they claim they havent) rendering my files and books invisible for practical use. But regarding copyright, which I have, it dont bother me much.
I'm not a lawyer. Recently, here in Australia - there was a music copyright infringement case with what appears to be some similar aspects.... a site that linked to copyright content, and made money off the advertising...
The federal Court has found a website linking to illegal MP3s and the Sydney service provider that hosted liable under copyright infringement laws.
....and had financially benefited from free advertising on the website...
I wonder if that was another spoke in the wheel that slowed this Google project down?
